Simon Lyall, agreed. The question is what is the size of the NZ workforce, and is tje profit declared in proportion to that.
So what then Marc C, no submissions, no hearings? We just adopt the plan the council comes up with straight off the bat? Because if it is not reasonable to expect people to read submissions, then the upshot is we couldn't use them to change the plan. That sounds like less democracy to me.
If people couldn't be bothered going through the submissions, the could simply have submitted to say they agree with PAUP zoning.
With SDR and the readers guide I think they have done a pretty good job. How would you summarise several thousand submissions. I suppose they could have mapped them all and put them into a GIS system at some cost. Whats your point? Did you raise this difficulty with the council at the time back in 2014?
They are on the AC website:
I think you are missing the point of what they mean by "conservative". By conservative they mean they are "erring on the side of caution" to put proposed zone changes into the "out of scope" bucket, when actually them may not be. Well it turns out if you use the actual definition of out of scope, instead of the definition they used in the conservative approach, effectively none of these zone changes are out of scope.
In practice this means anyone could have submitted against thouse submissions calling for the upzoning if they wanted to. You will have to ask them why they chose not to.
Yes, but if you think that if the IHP magically declares they are all In Scope that the Councillors that voted for the removal will change their mind you’re dreaming.
Over on TransportBlog they are seriously talking about how they should have made individual up zoning requests for every single property in Auckland if they had known to avoid the Out of Scope argument. That’s hardly engaging in good faith is it?
Well maybe I am dreaming, but that is the declared basis on which these councillors made their desicions. Basically the councillors were able to take a high-minded position (and also take the side of the people complaining). Now if they want to take the side of people complaining for another reason, that is up to them, but that isn't what they have done. To do so they would have to be more transparently anti intensification and not hide behind some process / natural justice argument. I genuine don't know if Chris Darby for example would do that.
The Transport Blog position is similar to my own in that the outcome of all this has been to disenfranchise those submitters that want upzoning. The current situation is very unfair to submitters who have called for upzoning. They are being treated as if their submissions dont even exist. If they can avoid this disenfranchisement in the future by listing thousands of property addresses then they should go for it - the point being they should not have been cut out of the process in the first place. Of course it is a stupid waste of everyones time, but that is not their fault, its the fault of the poeple who chose to ignore them when they just wrote submissions in plain english.
Glenn, it is also very relevant because it is the definition used in the resolution that they voted on! Thats what the council has to work with now.
Well you have a peculiar view on this, as the discussion during Council’s extraordinary meeting on this seemed to make clear that the blue bordered amendments on maps were considered to be “out of scope”.
No it didn't. If you listened to the planning officers they said that they had taken a "conservative" (read incorrect) definition of scope when making the maps. Here is what they said in their report:
"23. While the council has taken a conservative view of scope, and sought to rely on specific submissions for scope, we note that scope is determined as being anywhere between the position in the PAUP as notified and the relief that is sought in any original submissions on the PAUP – whether that original submission is specific to a property address or street, or whether that original submission is more broad and general in nature."
Socpe is determined by the IHP. And a number of submitters have already (pre this meeting) challenged the Councils "conservative" view.
"Legally relevant perhaps but I still think the same level of uproar would have occurred had they been labelled Out of Scope or not"
No doubt many people would have roared no matter what. I have seen many "uproar" comments in the current debate referring to zoning from the PAUP itself. The point is swing councillors interested in process accept the process overall, but not the out-of-scope bit.
Its very relevant Glenn. The councillors, particularly the swing councillors like Darby were hanging their desicion on "process". The issue is noone has a chance to submit on out of scope changes, but they did have a chance to submit on in scope changes (or more specifically the submissions calling for said relief). So it goes to the heart of what was debated.
Similarly in my discussion with Denise Krum she specifically said it was not about the scale it was about the process.